California may repeal ‘welfare queen’ law

February 23, 2015

baby-money1_0California Democrats are calling for the repeal of a law that bars families from receiving increases to their welfare checks if they give birth to an additional child while on benefits. [Sac Bee]

Sen. Holly Mitchell of Los Angeles says the law is based on the pejorative concept of a “welfare queen,” who has babies in order to collect more cash. Mitchell has authored Senate Bill 23, which calls for the repeal of California’s welfare limit rule.

Mitchell said the existing law was crafted to discourage welfare recipients from having children. Rather than accomplishing that, the rule helped California achieve the nation’s highest poverty rate, she said.

“It is a classist, sexist, anti-democratic, anti-child, anti-family policy whose premise did not come to fruition,” Mitchell said. “It did not accomplish what it set out to accomplish. So it’s appropriate to take it off the books.”

If the “maximum family grant” rule is appealed, families receiving welfare benefits would be eligible to collect about $130 a month per child. The change is welfare rules would cost the state about $205 million in the first year, according to a budget analysis prepared last year.

Mitchell has twice before tried unsuccessfully to repeal the welfare limit law, but she now has support from a host of organizations and from Sen. President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon.

Senate Republic Leader Bob Huff opposes the effort to overturn the welfare rule. Huff said the $200 million should go to a better use, like job training or childcare for working mothers.

Other opponents of Mitchell’s bill say that reinstating the $130 monthly payments will not lift welfare recipients out of poverty.


I don’t understand why having a picture of Aaron Ochs in this story is relavent.


Can there honestly be any other motive for wanting to redistribute wealth than assuring oneself a steady stream of voters addicted to hand outs rather than a hand up?


Defense at 13% is double what we spend on welfare’s 7% expenditures. Who’s the real “Welfare Queen”? Now add veterans, war-widows, orphaned dependent, etc, who depend on welfare, and you get a dismal picture of people in need.

Meanwhile defense spends money on “Black Budgets” we don’t hear about, but pay through the nose to the Halliburton-type company, mercenary armies for hire.

Add programs not even the Pentagon wants, but brings “Beacon” home to make jobs, there’s another form of welfare with deadly pay-off as it were.

Be careful who you label “Welfare Queen”, they happen to sit on $7,000.00 Air Force toilet seats.


Pretty easy to leave off the Medical, Education, and Pensions – all of which can technically be “welfare” (since most are not going to only pull out what they paid in, if any). The term “welfare” is pretty broad, and your pie-chart reference (while interesting) only tells a portion (your 7%) – that is, the Federal Government’s – not the State’s, in addition to pulling out the medical / education / pension (social security) figures.

It’s tricky to glob it all together, and move them around. One needs to be careful when one quotes sources (even when said sources do explain it, but require much more detailed analysis).


Waste is everywhere willnose.

There is no reason to encourage it.

If the waste were to be cut,

there would be plenty to spend on worthwhile and trulely needy causes.


This law should not be repealed! It is termed the “Welfare Queen” law for good reason.

Furthermore, anyone on long term welfare should lose their right to vote. I’ll be generous and give someone two years on welfare (welfare, not disability). If two years doesn’t give you enough time then move in with your family or friends. Why should the taxpaying public foot the bill for people who are unwilling to make an effort to support themselves, some of whom make themselves even more unable to support themselves by having additional children?



Short answer: the slaves keep voting themselves to remain on the plantation, and that is exactly how one party likes it (and the other too stupid to know what’s going on anywhere beyond their bank account).

Mitch C

I believe in offering short term assistance where unforeseen circumstances require that society step up to the plate. However, after a month or two, if you receive public assistance you should be required to perform public service. Just providing money to sit at home is obscene. What kind of role model can you be to children in your care if they are brought up to expect the taxpayers to support them. If you want the taxpayers to support you, then you need to be prepared to perform meaningful service to those footing the bill. In short, we should assist those willing to get off their dead butt, otherwise there should be no free lunch.


A month or two ?

How generous. People in extremity have often exhausted all means and are desperate. Most let pride prevent them from asking for or seeking help. Obviously, children without resources, maturity, or few if any capabilities are the most vulnerable.

Heartless and soul-less brutes can starve and kill them; but they will forever be more human, humble, and holy than those that think they own everything and are the masters of only their own small minds.

Mitch C

A month or two of free assistance is plenty. I am not suggesting that subsistence would go away after a short period of time, but if the receipt wishes to continue to receive taxpayer funds they would have to show up and work for it. Many exceptional projects have been completed using government assisted workers. If taxpayers are being asked to contribute, the taxpayer certainly can expect a return on their investment.


when it states in the Constitution that one of the main responsibilities of government is to ‘promote the general welfare’, it does not mean to provide a class of slaves for business.

People are not commodities or ‘investments’, and ‘taxpayers’ have to accept that civilization is not some ‘get-rich-quick’ scheme or hustling racket.

That’s the problem with America: too many grifters looking to make a fast buck, and too many stupid people that put up with them.


It is a real sorry commentary on our ‘elected’ representatives that have no better issue

to address than this. God almighty, are the problems facing this state so insignificant

that giving out more of the tax-payers money to welfare moms who don’t know to keep

their legs closed needs to even be considered???

Solve our REAL problems, before playing politics like this. With this, and other stupid

ways to spend our money – how long before this state will right back in a huge deficient?


The more irresponsible you are the more money you should get.

Sounds like a typical government program to me.


The ‘Too big to fail’ banks and other financial gangsters.

Agricultural subsidies.

War profiteers.


You Tories, economic royalists, racists, bigots, and overall degenerates don’t even know who your true enemies are.

Theo P. Neustic

Pandering to their voter base. Welfare doesn’t eliminate poverty, in fact, it facilitates more poverty.


Absolutely right Theo. Supply and Demand curves from Econ 101.

Subsidies increase the demand of whatever is subsidized. In this case the more you subsidize welfare the more welfare recipients you get.


Pure baloney !

Poverty creates and leads to so many social ills: crime, exploitation, extreme class separation, brutality, ignorance, just everything bad…a dystopia.

THAT is the world that Republicans want…everyone fighting for basic survival, and only the monsters survive.

Your vision is sick. It is recipe for extinction.


,Sen. Holly Mitchell of Los Angeles says the law is based on the pejorative concept of a “welfare queen,” who has babies in order to collect more cash.’

That’s precisely what they do. We have a “mother” here in the valley who pumped out nine for precisely that purpose. Her daughters are on the same track. Not only that, she gets a fat check every year from the IRS because of some child investment scheme, and brags about it. Ms. Mitchel is part of the vote buying scheme. Guess how our local ‘welfare queen’ votes?


“It is a classist, sexist, anti-democratic, anti-child, anti-family policy whose premise did not come to fruition,” Mitchell said.


That all desirable welfare family is that the one you are promoting? The woman who can’t work but who can spread her legs regular and often? Let’s spend more money to encourage them to become our next generation?

“It did not accomplish what it set out to accomplish. So it’s appropriate to take it off the books.”


Where’s the evidence of this? Let’s see how many had the extra child or more after the law v. before the law.

The sad thing here is that these politicians don’t really care about the welfare people wasting away their lives. All they care about is increasing their voter base and they know welfare recipients vote Democrat 99% of the time. It’s the same for Republicans who pander to the religious. It’s pretty much a guaranteed vote.


I was thinking something more insipid and diabolical: the State profits from children. RE: all the issues in the country (and locally) of late with Child Protective Services (or whichever name they go by in whatever fiefdom they’ve set up).

Kids are a profit center for state and local agencies; the fed feeds this beast, and it truly has become a monster.

1 2 3